As per Relevance of the word standard, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Activities
Request for Comments: 1250 J. Postel,
Obsoletes: RFCs 1200, August 1991
1100, 1083, 1130, 1140
IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL
Status of this
This memo describes the state of standardization of protocols used
the Internet as determined by the Internet Activities Board (IAB).
Distribution of this memo is unlimited
Table of
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. The Standardization Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Request for Comments Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Reference Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Assigned Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Annotated Internet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Gateway Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Host Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. The MIL-STD Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Definitions of Protocol State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Draft Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.3. Proposed Standard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Experimental Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.5. Informational Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Historic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Definitions of Protocol Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4.2.1. Required Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4.2.2. Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Elective Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.4. Limited Use Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Not Recommended Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. The Standards Track Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. The Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. New RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Internet Activities Board [Page 1]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
6.2. Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Network-Specific Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. Draft Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. Proposed Standard Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.6. Telnet Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.7. Experimental Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.8. Informational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.9. Historic Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. IAB, IETF, and IRTF Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1.1. Internet Activities Board (IAB) Contact . . . . . . . 24
7.1.2. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Contact . . . . 25
7.1.3. Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Contact . . . . . 25
7.2. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Contact . . . 26
7.3. Request for Comments Editor Contact . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4. Network Information Center Contact . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.5. Other Sources for Requests for Comments . . . . . . . . 28
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Discussion of the standardization process and the RFC document
is presented first, followed by an explanation of the terms
Sections 6.2 - 6.9 contain the lists of protocols in each stage
standardization. Finally come pointers to references and
for further information
This memo is intended to be issued quarterly; please be sure the
you are reading is current. Current copies may be obtained from
Network Information Center or from the Internet Assigned
Authority (see the contact information at the end of this memo).
not use this edition after 30-Nov-91.
See Section 6.1 for a description of recent changes. In the
lists in sections 6.2 - 6.9, an asterisk (*) next to a
denotes that it is new to this document or has been moved from
protocol level to another
1. The Standardization
The Internet Activities Board maintains this list of documents
define standards for the Internet protocol suite (see RFC-1160 for
explanation of the role and organization of the IAB and
subsidiary groups, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)). The IAB provides
standards with the goal of co-ordinating the evolution of
Internet protocols; this co-ordination has become quite important
Internet Activities Board [Page 2]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
the Internet protocols are increasingly in general commercial use
The majority of Internet protocol development and
activity takes place in the working groups of the
Engineering Task Force
Protocols which are to become standards in the Internet go through
series of states (proposed standard, draft standard, and standard
involving increasing amounts of scrutiny and experimental testing
At each step, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) of
IETF must make a recommendation for advancement of the protocol
the IAB must ratify it. If a recommendation is not ratified,
protocol is remanded to the IETF for further work
To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react
standardization proposals, the IAB imposes a minimum delay of 4
months before a proposed standard can be advanced to a draft
and 6 months before a draft standard can be promoted to standard
It is general IAB practice that no proposed standard can be
to draft standard without at least two independent
(and the recommendation of the IESG). Promotion from draft
to standard generally requires operational experience
demonstrated interoperability of two or more implementations (and
recommendation of the IESG).
In cases where there is uncertainty as to the proper
concerning a protocol the IAB may convene a special review
consisting of experts from the IETF, IRTF and the IAB with
purpose of recommending an explicit action to the IAB
Advancement of a protocol to proposed standard is an important
since it marks a protocol as a candidate for eventual
(it puts the protocol "on the standards track"). Advancement
draft standard is a major step which warns the community that,
major objections are raised or flaws are discovered, the protocol
likely to be advanced to standard in six months
Some protocols have been superseded by better ones or are
unused. Such protocols are still documented in this memorandum
the designation "historic".
Because the IAB believes it is useful to document the results
early protocol research and development work, some of the
document protocols which are still in an experimental condition.
protocols are designated "experimental" in this memorandum.
appear in this report as a convenience to the community and not
evidence of their standardization
Internet Activities Board [Page 3]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
Other protocols, such as those developed by other
organizations, or by particular vendors, may be of interest or may
recommended for use in the Internet. The specifications of
protocols may be published as RFCs for the convenience of
Internet community. These protocols are labeled "informational"
this memorandum
In addition to the working groups of the IETF, protocol
and experimentation may take place as a result of the work of
research groups of the Internet Research Task Force, or the work
other individuals interested in Internet protocol development.
IAB encourages the documentation of such experimental work in the
series, but none of this work is considered to be on the track
standardization until the IESG has made a recommendation to
the protocol to the proposed standard state, and the IAB has
this step
A few protocols have achieved widespread implementation without
approval of the IESG and the IAB. For example, some vendor
have become very important to the Internet community even though
have not been recommended by the IESG or ratified by the IAB
However, the IAB strongly recommends that the IAB standards
be used in the evolution of the protocol suite to
interoperability (and to prevent incompatible protocol
from arising). The IAB reserves the use of the terms "standard",
"draft standard", and "proposed standard" in any RFC or
publication of Internet protocols to only those protocols which
IAB has approved
In addition to a state (like "Proposed Standard"), a protocol is
assigned a status, or requirement level, in this document.
possible requirement levels ("Required", "Recommended", "Elective",
"Limited Use", and "Not Recommended") are defined in Section 4.2.
When a protocol is on the standards track, that is in the
standard, draft standard, or standard state (see Section 5),
status shown in Section 6 is the current status. For a proposed
draft standard, however, the IAB will also endeavor to indicate
eventual status this protocol will have after adoption as a standard
Few protocols are required to be implemented in all systems; this
because there is such a variety of possible systems, for example
gateways, terminal servers, workstations, and multi-user hosts.
requirement level shown in this document is only a one word label
which may not be sufficient to characterize the
requirements for a protocol in all situations. For some protocols
this document contains an additional status paragraph (
applicability statement). In addition, more detailed
information is contained in separate requirements documents (
Internet Activities Board [Page 4]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
Section 3).
2. The Request for Comments
The documents called Request for Comments (or RFCs) are the
notes of the "Network Working Group", that is the Internet
and development community. A document in this series may be
essentially any topic related to computer communication, and may
anything from a meeting report to the specification of a standard
Notice
All standards are published as RFCs, but not all RFCs
standards
Anyone can submit a document for publication as an RFC.
must be made via electronic mail to the RFC Editor (see the
information at the end of this memo).
While RFCs are not refereed publications, they do receive
review from the task forces, individual technical experts, or the
Editor, as appropriate
The RFC series comprises a wide range of documents, ranging
informational documents of general interests to specifications
standard Internet protocols. In cases where submission is
to document a proposed standard, draft standard, or
protocol, the RFC Editor will publish the document only with
approval of both the IESG and the IAB. For documents
experimental work, the RFC Editor will notify the IESG
publication, allowing for the possibility of review by the
IETF working group or IRTF research group and provide those
to the author. See Section 5.1 for more detail
Once a document is assigned an RFC number and published, that RFC
never revised or re-issued with the same number. There is never
question of having the most recent version of a particular RFC
However, a protocol (such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP)) may
improved and re-documented many times in several different RFCs.
is important to verify that you have the most recent RFC on
particular protocol. This "IAB Official Protocol Standards" memo
the reference for determining the correct RFC for the
specification of each protocol
The RFCs are available from the Network Information Center at
International, and a number of other sites. For more
about obtaining RFCs, see Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
Internet Activities Board [Page 5]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
3. Other Reference
There are four other reference documents of interest in checking
current status of protocol specifications and standardization.
are the Assigned Numbers, the Annotated Internet Protocols,
Gateway Requirements, and the Host Requirements. Note that
documents are revised and updated at different times; in case
differences between these documents, the most recent must prevail
Also, one should be aware of the MIL-STD publications on IP, TCP
Telnet, FTP, and SMTP. These are described in Section 3.5.
3.1. Assigned
This document lists the assigned values of the parameters used in
various protocols. For example, IP protocol codes, TCP port numbers
Telnet Option Codes, ARP hardware types, and Terminal Type names
Assigned Numbers was most recently issued as RFC-1060.
Another document, Internet Numbers, lists the assigned IP
numbers, and the autonomous system numbers. Internet Numbers
most recently issued as RFC-1166.
3.2. Annotated Internet
This document lists the protocols and describes any known
and ongoing experiments. This document was most recently issued
RFC-1011.
3.3. Gateway
This document reviews the specifications that apply to gateways
supplies guidance and clarification for any ambiguities.
Requirements is RFC-1009. A working group of the IETF is
preparing a revision
3.4. Host
This pair of documents reviews and updates the specifications
apply to hosts, and it supplies guidance and clarification for
ambiguities. Host Requirements was issued as RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
3.5. The MIL-STD
The Internet community specifications for IP (RFC-791) and TCP (RFC
793) and the DoD MIL-STD specifications are intended to
exactly the same protocols. Any difference in the
specified by these sets of documents should be reported to DCA and
Internet Activities Board [Page 6]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
the IAB. The RFCs and the MIL-STDs for IP and TCP differ in
and level of detail. It is strongly advised that the two sets
documents be used together, along with RFC-1122 and RFC-1123.
The IAB and the DoD MIL-STD specifications for the FTP, SMTP,
Telnet protocols are essentially the same documents (RFCs 765, 821,
854). The MIL-STD versions have been edited slightly. Note that
current Internet specification for FTP is RFC-959 (as modified
RFC-1123).
Note that these MIL-STD are now somewhat out of date. The
Requirements (RFC-1009) and Host Requirements (RFC-1122, RFC-1123)
take precedence over both earlier RFCs and the MIL-STDs
Internet Protocol (IP) MIL-STD-1777
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MIL-STD-1778
File Transfer Protocol (FTP) MIL-STD-1780
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) MIL-STD-1781
Telnet Protocol and Options (TELNET) MIL-STD-1782
These documents are available from the Naval Publications and
Center. Requests can be initiated by telephone, telegraph, or mail
however, it is preferred that private industry use form DD1425,
possible. These five documents are included in the 1985 DDN
Handbook (available from the Network Information Center, see
7.4).
Naval Publications and Forms Center, Code 3015
5801 Tabor
Philadelphia, PA 19120
Phone: 1-215-697-3321 (order tape
1-215-697-4834 (conversation
4. Explanation of
There are two independent categorization of protocols. The first
the STATE of standardization, one of "standard", "draft standard",
"proposed standard", "experimental", "informational" or "historic".
The second is the STATUS (requirement level or applicability) of
protocol, one of "required", "recommended", "elective", "
use", or "not recommended".
The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one
label. These status labels should be considered only as
indication, and a further description, or applicability statement
should be consulted
When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard
Internet Activities Board [Page 7]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
it is labeled with a current status and when possible, the IAB
notes the status that the protocol is expected to have when
reaches the standard state
At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix
Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the
proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs). A new
is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell,
the (experimental, not recommended) cell
S T A T U
Req Rec Ele Lim
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Std | X | XXX | XXX | | |
S +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Draft | X | X | XXX | | |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Prop | | X | XXX | X | |
A +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Info | | X | XXX | X | X |
T +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Expr | | | X | XXX | X |
E +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Hist | | | | X | XXX |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
What is a "system"?
Some protocols are particular to hosts and some to gateways; a
protocols are used in both. The definitions of the terms
will refer to a "system" which is either a host or a gateway (
both). It should be clear from the context of the
protocol which types of systems are intended
4.1. Definitions of Protocol
Every protocol listed in this document is assigned to a STATE
standardization: "standard", "draft standard", "proposed standard",
"experimental", or "historic".
4.1.1. Standard
The IAB has established this as an official standard protocol
the Internet. These are separated into two groups: (1)
protocol and above, protocols that apply to the whole Internet
and (2) network-specific protocols, generally specifications
how to do IP on particular types of networks
Internet Activities Board [Page 8]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
4.1.2. Draft Standard
The IAB is actively considering this protocol as a
Standard Protocol. Substantial and widespread testing and
are desired. Comments and test results should be submitted to
IAB. There is a possibility that changes will be made in a
Standard Protocol before it becomes a Standard Protocol
4.1.3. Proposed Standard
These are protocol proposals that may be considered by the IAB
standardization in the future. Implementation and testing
several groups is desirable. Revision of the
specification is likely
4.1.4. Experimental
A system should not implement an experimental protocol unless
is participating in the experiment and has coordinated its use
the protocol with the developer of the protocol
Typically, experimental protocols are those that are developed
part of an ongoing research project not related to an
service offering. While they may be proposed as a
protocol at a later stage, and thus become proposed standard
draft standard, and then standard protocols, the designation of
protocol as experimental may sometimes be meant to suggest
the protocol, although perhaps mature, is not intended
operational use
4.1.5. Informational
Protocols developed by other standard organizations, or vendors
or that are for other reasons outside the purview of the IAB,
be published as RFCs for the convenience of the Internet
as informational protocols. Such protocols may in some cases
be recommended for use in the Internet by the IAB
4.1.6. Historic
These are protocols that are unlikely to ever become standards
the Internet either because they have been superseded by
developments or due to lack of interest
Internet Activities Board [Page 9]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
4.2. Definitions of Protocol
This document lists a STATUS (requirement level or applicability
for each protocol. The status is one of "required",
"recommended", "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".
4.2.1. Required
A system must implement the required protocols
4.2.2. Recommended
A system should implement the recommended protocols
4.2.3. Elective
A system may or may not implement an elective protocol.
general notion is that if you are going to do something like this
you must do exactly this. There may be several elective
in a general area, for example, there are several electronic
protocols, and several routing protocols
4.2.4. Limited Use
These protocols are for use in limited circumstances. This may
because of their experimental state, specialized nature,
functionality, or historic state
4.2.5. Not Recommended
These protocols are not recommended for general use. This may
because of their limited functionality, specialized nature,
experimental or historic state
5. The Standards
This section discusses in more detail the procedures used by the
Editor and the IAB in making decisions about the labeling
publishing of protocols as standards
5.1. The RFC Processing Decision
Here is the current decision table for processing submissions by
RFC Editor. The processing depends on who submitted it, and
status they want it to have
Internet Activities Board [Page 10]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
+==========================================================+
|**************| S O U R C E |
+==========================================================+
| Desired | IAB | IESG | IRSG | Other |
| Status | | | or RG | |
+==========================================================+
| | | | | |
| Standard | Publish | Vote | Bogus | Bogus |
| or | (1) | (3) | (2) | (2) |
| Draft | | | | |
| Standard | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Vote | Refer | Refer |
| Proposed | (1) | (3) | (4) | (4) |
| Standard | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| | Publish | Notify | Notify | Notify |
| Experimental | (1) | (5) | (5) | (5) |
| Protocol | | | | |
| | | | | |
+--------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| | | | | |
| Information | Publish |Discretion|Discretion|Discretion
| or Opinion | (1) | (6) | (6) | (6) |
| Paper | | | | |
| | | | | |
+==========================================================+
(1) Publish
(2) Bogus. Inform the source of the rules. RFCs
Standard, or Draft Standard must come from the IAB, only
(3) Vote by the IAB. If approved then do Publish (1), else
Refer (4).
(4) Refer to an Area Director for review by a WG. Expect to
the document again only after approval by the IESG and
IAB
(5) Notify both the IESG and IRSG. If no concerns are raised
two weeks then do Discretion (6), else RFC Editor to
the concerns or do Refer (4).
(6) RFC Editor's discretion. The RFC Editor decides if a
Internet Activities Board [Page 11]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
is needed and if so by whom. RFC Editor decides to publish
not
Of course, in all cases the RFC Editor can request or make
changes for style, format, and presentation purposes
The IESG has designated the IESG Secretary as its agent
forwarding documents with IESG approval and for registering
in response to notifications (5) to the RFC Editor. Documents
Area Directors or Working Group Chairs may be considered in the
way as documents from "other".
5.2. The Standards Track
There is a part of the STATUS and STATE categorization that is
the standards track. Actually, only the changes of state
significant to the progression along the standards track, though
status assignments may be changed as well
The states illustrated by single line boxes are temporary states
those illustrated by double line boxes are long term states.
protocol will normally be expected to remain in a temporary state
several months (minimum four months for proposed standard,
six months for draft standard). A protocol may be in a long
state for many years
A protocol may enter the standards track only on the
of the IESG and by action of the IAB; and may move from one state
another along the track only on the recommendation of the IESG and
action of the IAB. That is, it takes both the IESG and the IAB
either start a protocol on the track or to move it along
Generally, as the protocol enters the standards track a decision
made as to the eventual STATUS, requirement level or
(elective, recommended, or required) the protocol will have,
a somewhat less stringent current status may be assigned, and it
is placed in the the proposed standard STATE with that status.
the initial placement of a protocol is into state 1. At any time
STATUS decision may be revisited
Internet Activities Board [Page 12]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
|
+<----------------------------------------------+
| ^
V 0 | 4
+-----------+ +===========+
| enter |-->----------------+-------------->|experiment |
+-----------+ | +=====+=====+
| |
V 1 |
+-----------+
| proposed |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 2 |
+<---+-----+-----+
| draft std |-------------->+
+--->+-----+-----+ |
| | |
| V 3 |
+<---+=====+=====+
| standard |-------------->+
+=====+=====+ |
|
V 5
+=====+=====+
| historic |
+===========+
The transition from proposed standard (1) to draft standard (2)
only be by action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG
only after the protocol has been proposed standard (1) for at
four months
The transition from draft standard (2) to standard (3) can only be
action of the IAB on the recommendation of the IESG and only
the protocol has been draft standard (2) for at least six months
Occasionally, the decision may be that the protocol is not ready
standardization and will be assigned to the experimental state (4).
This is off the standards track, and the protocol may be
to enter the standards track after further work. There are
paths into the experimental and historic states that do not
IAB action
Sometimes one protocol is replaced by another and thus
historic, or it may happen that a protocol on the standards track
in a sense overtaken by another protocol (or other events)
becomes historic (state 5).
Internet Activities Board [Page 13]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
6. The
Subsection 6.1 lists recent RFCs and other changes. Subsections 6.2
- 6.9 list the standards in groups by protocol state
6.1. Recent
6.1.1. New RFCs
1252 - OSPF Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol
1251 - Who's Who in the
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1250 - This memo
1249 - DIXIE Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1248 - OSPF Version 2
A Proposed Standard protocol
1247 - OSPF Version 2
A Draft Standard protocol
1246 - Experience with the OSPF
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1245 - OSPF Protocol
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1244 - Site Security
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Activities Board [Page 14]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
1243 - AppleTalk Management Information
A Proposed Standard protocol
1242 - Benchmarking Terminology for Network
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1241 - A Scheme for an Internet Encapsulation Protocol: Version 1
This is a new Experimental protocol
1240 - OSI Connectionless Transport
on top of UDP - Version: 1
A Proposed Standard protocol
1239 - Reassignment of Experimental MIBs to Standard
A Proposed Standard protocol
1238 - CLNS MIB - for use with Connectionless
Protocol (ISO 8473) and End System to
System (ISO 9542)
This is a new Experimental protocol
1237 - Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the
A Proposed Standard protocol
1236 - IP to X.121 Address Mapping for
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1235 - The Coherent File Distribution
This is a new Experimental protocol
1234 - Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP
A Proposed Standard protocol
Internet Activities Board [Page 15]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
1233 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS3 Interface
A Proposed Standard protocol
1232 - Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 Interface
A Proposed Standard protocol
1231 - IEEE 802.5 Token Ring
A Proposed Standard protocol
1230 - IEEE 802.4 Token Bus
A Proposed Standard protocol
1229 - Extensions to the Generic-Interface
A Proposed Standard protocol
1228 - SNMP-DPI - Simple Network Management Protocol
Program
This is a new Experimental protocol
1227 - SNMP MUX Protocol and
This is a new Experimental protocol
1226 - Internet Protocol Encapsulation of AX.25
This is a new Experimental protocol
1225 - Post Office Protocol - Version 3
A Draft Standard protocol
1224 - Techniques for Managing Asynchronously Generated
This is a new Experimental protocol
1223 - OSI CLNS and LLC1 Protocols on Network Systems
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
Internet Activities Board [Page 16]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
1222 - Advancing the NSFNET Routing
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1221 - Host Access Protocol (HAP) Specification - Version 2
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
1220 - Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions for
A Proposed Standard protocol
1219 - On the Assignment of Subnet
This is an information document and does not specify
level of standard
6.1.2. Other Changes
The following are changes to protocols listed in the
edition
1213 - Management Information Base for Network
of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-
Advanced to Standard protocol
1212 - Concise MIB
Advanced to Draft Standard protocol
Section 6.6 on Telnet Options has been added
Internet Activities Board [Page 17]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
6.2. Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============= =====
-------- Assigned Numbers Required 1060
-------- Gateway Requirements Required 1009
-------- Host Requirements - Communications Required 1122
-------- Host Requirements - Applications Required 1123
IP Internet Protocol Required 791
as amended by
-------- IP Subnet Extension Required 950
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams Required 919
-------- IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets Required 922
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol Required 792
IGMP Internet Group Multicast Protocol Recommended 1112
UDP User Datagram Protocol Recommended 768
TCP Transmission Control Protocol Recommended 793
SMI Structure of Management Information Recommended 1155
MIB-I Management Information Base Recommended 1156
MIB-II Management Information Base-II Recommended 1213*
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol Recommended 1157
DOMAIN Domain Name System Recommended 1034,1035
TELNET Telnet Protocol Recommended 854
FTP File Transfer Protocol Recommended 959
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Recommended 821
MAIL Format of Electronic Mail Messages Recommended 822
DNS-MX Mail Routing and the Domain System Recommended 974
CONTENT Content Type Header Field Recommended 1049
EGP Exterior Gateway Protocol Recommended 904
ECHO Echo Protocol Recommended 862
NTP Network Time Protocol Recommended 1119
NETBIOS NetBIOS Service Protocols Elective 1001,1002
DISCARD Discard Protocol Elective 863
CHARGEN Character Generator Protocol Elective 864
QUOTE Quote of the Day Protocol Elective 865
USERS Active Users Protocol Elective 866
DAYTIME Daytime Protocol Elective 867
TIME Time Server Protocol Elective 868
Applicability Statements
IGMP -- The Internet Activities Board intends to move towards
adoption of IP multicasting, as a more efficient solution
broadcasting for many applications. The host interface has
standardized in RFC-1112; however, multicast-routing gateways are
the experimental stage and are not widely available. An
host should support all of RFC-1112, except for the IGMP
itself which is optional; see RFC-1122 for more details.
Internet Activities Board [Page 18]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
without IGMP, implementation of RFC-1112 will provide an
advance: IP-layer access to local network multicast addressing.
is expected that IGMP will become recommended for all hosts
gateways at some future date
SMI, MIB-I, MIB-II SNMP -- The Internet Activities Board
that all IP and TCP implementations be network manageable. At
current time, this implies implementation of the Internet MIB-
(RFC-1156), the extensions in MIB-II (RFC-1213), and at least
recommended management protocol SNMP (RFC-1157).
6.3. Network-Specific Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
ARP Address Resolution Protocol Elective 826
RARP A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol Elective 903
IP-ARPA Internet Protocol on ARPANET Elective BBN 1822
IP-WB Internet Protocol on Wideband Network Elective 907
IP-X25 Internet Protocol on X.25 Networks Elective 877
IP-E Internet Protocol on Ethernet Networks Elective 894
IP-EE Internet Protocol on Exp. Ethernet Nets Elective 895
IP-IEEE Internet Protocol on IEEE 802 Elective 1042
IP-DC Internet Protocol on DC Networks Elective 891
IP-HC Internet Protocol on Hyperchannel Elective 1044
IP-ARC Internet Protocol on ARCNET Elective 1051
IP-SLIP Transmission of IP over Serial Lines Elective 1055
IP-NETBIOS Transmission of IP over NETBIOS Elective 1088
IP-FDDI Transmission of IP over FDDI Elective 1188
IP-IPX Transmission of 802.2 over IPX Networks Elective 1132
Applicability Statements
It is expected that a system will support one or more
networks and for each physical network supported the
protocols from the above list must be supported. That is, it
elective to support any particular type of physical network, and
the physical networks actually supported it is required that they
supported exactly according to the protocols in the above list.
also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more
information on network-specific ("link layer") protocols
Internet Activities Board [Page 19]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
6.4. Draft Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
OSPF2 Open Shortest Path First Routing V2 Elective 1247*
POP3 Post Office Protocol, Version 3 Elective 1225*
Concise-MIB Concise MIB Definitions Elective 1212*
FINGER Finger Protocol Elective 1196
IP-FDDI Internet Protocol on FDDI Networks Elective 1188
TOPT-LINE Telnet Linemode Option Elective 1184
PPP Point to Point Protocol Elective 1171
-------- Mail Privacy: Procedures Elective 1113
-------- Mail Privacy: Key Management Elective 1114
-------- Mail Privacy: Algorithms Elective 1115
BOOTP Bootstrap Protocol Recommended 951,1084
RIP Routing Information Protocol Elective 1058
TP-TCP ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP Elective 1006
NICNAME WhoIs Protocol Elective 954
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol Elective 783
Applicability Statements
RIP -- The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is widely
and used in the Internet. However, both implementors and
should be aware that RIP has some serious technical limitations as
routing protocol. The IETF is currently developing
candidates for a new standard "open" routing protocol with
properties than RIP. The IAB urges the Internet community to
these developments, and to implement the new protocol when it
standardized; improved Internet service will result for many users
TP-TCP -- As OSI protocols become more widely implemented and used
there will be an increasing need to support interoperation with
TCP/IP protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is
strategies for interoperation. RFC-1006 provides one
mode, in which TCP/IP is used to emulate TP0 in order to support
applications. Hosts that wish to run OSI connection-
applications in this mode should use the procedure described in RFC
1006. In the future, the IAB expects that a major portion of
Internet will support both TCP/IP and OSI (inter-)network
in parallel, and it will then be possible to run OSI
across the Internet using full OSI protocol "stacks".
PPP -- Point to Point Protocol is a method of sending IP over
lines, which are a type of physical network. It is anticipated
PPP will be advanced to the network-specific standard protocol
in the future
Internet Activities Board [Page 20]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
6.5. Proposed Standard
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
OSPF-MIB OSPF Version 2 MIB Elective 1248,1252*
AT-MIB Appletalk MIB Elective 1243*
OSI-UDP OSI TS on UDP Elective 1240*
STD-MIBs Reassignment of Exp MIBs to Std MIBs Elective 1239*
OSI-NSAP Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation Elective 1237*
IPX-IP Tunneling IPX Traffic through IP Nets Elective 1234*
DS3-MIB DS3 Interface Objects Elective 1233*
DS1-MIB DS1 Interface Objects Elective 1232*
802.5-MIB IEEE 802.5 Token Ring MIB Elective 1231*
802.4-MIP IEEE 802.4 Token Bus MIB Elective 1230*
GINT-MIB Extensions to the Generic-Interface MIB Elective 1229*
PPP-EXT PPP Extensions for Bridging Elective 1220*
OIM-MIB-II OSI Internet Management: MIB-II Elective 1214
IP-SMDS IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service Elective 1209
IP-ARCNET Transmitting IP Traffic over ARCNET Nets Elective 1201
IS-IS OSI IS-IS for TCP/IP Dual Environments Elective 1195
IP-MTU Path MTU Discovery Elective 1191
CMOT Common Management Information Services Elective 1189
and Protocol over TCP/
PPP-INIT PPP Initial Configuration Options Elective 1172
BGP Border Gateway Protocol Elective 1163,1164
IP-CMPRS Compressing TCP/IP Headers Elective 1144
ISO-TS-ECHO Echo for ISO-8473 Elective 1139
SUN-NFS Network File System Protocol Elective 1094
SUN-RPC Remote Procedure Call Protocol Elective 1057
PCMAIL Pcmail Transport Protocol Elective 1056
NFILE A File Access Protocol Elective 1037
------- Mapping between X.400(84) and RFC-822 Elective 987,1026
NNTP Network News Transfer Protocol Elective 977
HOSTNAME HOSTNAME Protocol Elective 953
SFTP Simple File Transfer Protocol Elective 913
RLP Resource Location Protocol Elective 887
SUPDUP SUPDUP Protocol Elective 734
Applicability Statements
IP-SMDS and IP-ARCNET -- These define methods of sending IP
particular network types. It is anticipated that these will
advanced to the network specific standard protocol state in
future
Internet Activities Board [Page 21]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
6.6. Telnet
For convenience all the Telnet Options are collected here with
their state and status
Protocol Name Number State Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
TOPT-BIN Binary Transmission 0 Std Rec 856*
TOPT-ECHO Echo 1 Std Rec 857*
TOPT-RECN Reconnection 2 Prop Ele ...*
TOPT-SUPP Suppress Go Ahead 3 Std Rec 858*
TOPT-APRX Approx Message Size Negotiation 4 Prop Ele ...*
TOPT-STAT Status 5 Std Rec 859*
TOPT-TIM Timing Mark 6 Std Rec 860*
TOPT-REM Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 7 Prop Ele 726*
TOPT-OLW Output Line Width 8 Prop Ele ...*
TOPT-OPS Output Page Size 9 Prop Ele ...*
TOPT-OCRD Output Carriage-Return Disposition 10 Prop Ele 652*
TOPT-OHT Output Horizontal Tabstops 11 Prop Ele 653*
TOPT-OHTD Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 12 Prop Ele 654*
TOPT-OFD Output Formfeed Disposition 13 Prop Ele 655*
TOPT-OVT Output Vertical Tabstops 14 Prop Ele 656*
TOPT-OVTD Output Vertical Tab Disposition 15 Prop Ele 657*
TOPT-OLD Output Linefeed Disposition 16 Prop Ele 658*
TOPT-EXT Extended ASCII 17 Prop Ele 698*
TOPT-LOGO Logout 18 Prop Ele 727*
TOPT-BYTE Byte Macro 19 Prop Ele 735*
TOPT-DATA Data Entry Terminal 20 Prop Ele 1043*
TOPT-SUP SUPDUP 21 Prop Ele 734*
TOPT-SUPO SUPDUP Output 22 Prop Ele 749*
TOPT-SNDL Send Location 23 Prop Ele 779*
TOPT-TERM Terminal Type 24 Prop Ele 930*
TOPT-EOR End of Record 25 Prop Ele 885*
TOPT-TACACS TACACS User Identification 26 Prop Ele 927*
TOPT-OM Output Marking 27 Prop Ele 933*
TOPT-TLN Terminal Location Number 28 Prop Ele 946*
TOPT-3270 Telnet 3270 Regime 29 Prop Ele 1041*
TOPT-X.3 X.3 PAD 30 Prop Ele 1053*
TOPT-NAWS Negotiate About Window Size 31 Prop Ele 1073*
TOPT-TS Terminal Speed 32 Prop Ele 1079*
TOPT-RFC Remote Flow Control 33 Prop Ele 1080*
TOPT-LINE Linemode 34 Draft Ele 1184*
TOPT-XDL X Display Location 35 Prop Ele 1096*
TOPT-EXTOP Extended-Options-List 255 Std Rec 861*
Internet Activities Board [Page 22]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
6.7. Experimental
Protocol Name Status
======== ===================================== ============== =====
IN-ENCAP Internet Encapsulation Protocol Limited Use 1241*
CLNS-MIB CLNS-MIB Limited Use 1238*
CFDP Coherent File Distribution Protocol Limited Use 1235*
SNMP-DPI SNMP Distributed Program Interface Limited Use 1228*
SNMP-MUX SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB Limited Use 1227*
IP-AX25 IP Encapsulation of AX.25 Frames Limited Use 1226*
ALERTS Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts Limited Use 1224*
MPP Message Posting Protocol Limited Use 1204
ST-II Stream Protocol Limited Use 1190
SNMP-BULK Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP Limited Use 1187
DNS-RR New DNS RR Definitions Limited Use 1183
NTP-OSI NTP over OSI Remote Operations Limited Use 1165
MSP Message Send Protocol Limited Use 1159
EHF-MAIL Encoding Header Field for Mail Elective 1154
DMF-MAIL Digest Message Format for Mail Elective 1153
RDP Reliable Data Protocol Limited Use 908,1151
-------- Mapping between X.400(88) and RFC-822 Elective 1148
TCP-ACO TCP Alternate Checksum Option Not Recommended 1146
-------- Mapping full 822 to Restricted 822 Elective 1137
IP-DVMRP IP Distance Vector Multicast Routing Not Recommended 1075
TCP-LDP TCP Extensions for Long Delay Paths Limited Use 1072
IMAP2 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1176,1064
IMAP3 Interactive Mail Access Protocol Limited Use 1203
VMTP Versatile Message Transaction Protocol Elective 1045
COOKIE-JAR Authentication Scheme Not Recommended 1004
NETBLT Bulk Data Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 998
IRTP Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol Not Recommended 938
AUTH Authentication Service Not Recommended 931
LDP Loader Debugger Protocol Not Recommended 909
NVP-II Network Voice Protocol Limited Use ISI-
PVP Packet Video Protocol Limited Use ISI-
6.8. Informational
Protocol Name Status
======= ==================================== =============== =====
DIXIE DIXIE Protocol Specification Limited Use 1249*
IP-X.121 IP to X.121 Address Mapping for DDN Limited Use 1236*
OSI-HYPER OSI and LLC1 on HYPERchannel Limited Use 1223*
HAP2 Host Access Protocol Limited Use 1221*
SUBNETASGN On the Assignment of Subnet Numbers Limited Use 1219*
SNMP-TRAPS Defining Traps for use with SNMP Limited Use 1215
DAS Directory Assistance Service Limited Use 1202
Internet Activities Board [Page 23]
RFC 1250 IAB Standards August 1991
MD4 MD4 Message Digest Algorithm Limited Use 1186
LPDP Line Printer Daemon Protocol Limited Use 1179
6.9. Historic
Protocol Name Status
======= ===================================== ============== =====
SGMP Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 1028
HEMS High Level Entity Management Protocol Not Recommended 1021
STATSRV Statistics Server Not Recommended 996
POP2 Post Office Protocol, Version 2 Not Recommended 937
RATP Reliable Asynchronous Transfer Protocol Not Recommended 916
HFEP Host - Front End Protocol Not Recommended 929*
THINWIRE Thinwire Protocol Not Recommended 914
HMP Host Monitoring Protocol Not Recommended 869
GGP Gateway Gateway Protocol Not Recommended 823
RTELNET Remote Telnet Service Not Recommended 818
CLOCK DCNET Time Server Protocol Not Recommended 778
MPM Internet Message Protocol Not Recommended 759
NETRJS Remote Job Service Not Recommended 740
NETED Network Standard Text Editor Not Recommended 569
RJE Remote Job Entry Not Recommended 407
XNET Cross Net Debugger Not Recommended IEN-158
NAMESERVER Host Name Server Protocol Not Recommended IEN-116
MUX Multiplexing Protocol Not 